Life imitates art… Liberals see the world as they imagine it is, not how it actually is

I’ve always been a fan of Van Gogh’s paintings. I similarly like Renoir, and Seurat. Although I like some of Picasso’s early work, most of it I find a bit odd. My favorite artist however is William Adolphe Bouguereau, a 19th century French artist whose works are the polar opposite of the impressionists, literally.

From the 1870s his realistic portrayal of the human form was increasingly seen as passé in an art world increasingly captivated by Impressionism – a style which influenced both Van Gogh and Seurat. By the early 20th century Bouguereau’s work had completely fallen out of favor among cultured art devotees, – i.e. everyone except those uncivilized Americans.

Impressionist art was less precise than that of Bouguereau and most artists who came before him. It began a march that has brought us a century of modern art that is often anything but precise… Think Jackson Pollack or Christo.

A challenge of art is that what the artist is trying to convey (if anything) is often up for debate. Take any three people and ask them what is the artist’s intent behind one of Alexander Calder’s mobiles and you’ll no doubt get three completely different ideas.

Such lack of clarity works well in the subjective world of art. Not so much in the not so subjective world of politics and government. It is perhaps no surprise then that the rise of modern liberalism has evolved over a similar timeline and path as modern art.

Politicians on the left no longer look to objective facts to define the world around them. Rather, they look at the world as they would like it to be and interpret it accordingly. How else could one explain the lunacy that pervades the Democrat party today?

Data clearly show that stricter gun laws lead to more crime but that is of no consequence. President Obama and the rest of the progressives who want to pass gun laws that will magically make the world a safer place… as if there were no knives, swords, cars or anything else that might ever be used as a weapon.

Then there are government schools. Could there be a more crystal clear example of government failure on the planet than public schools? Yet somehow the union backed Democrats continue to fight vouchers and school reform despite the physical and intellectual carnage government schools have wrought on American children.

Of course the most important example of the liberal failing to see exactly what is in front of them is on economics. In 2009, just as Canada was beginning to look at free markets to fix its state controlled healthcare sector Nancy Pelosi was crafting ObamaCare to strangle the American people. Over the last four years, just as Greece, Spain and Italy collapse under the weight of their social programs and confiscatory tax rates, the Obama administration has sought to expand government welfare, increase taxes on those who create wealth and further strangle the economy with regulation.

At some point one has to wonder what exactly liberals are looking at that would cause them to make such illogical choices. It makes you think of a doctor who studies medicine with anatomy books illustrated by Picasso. Do you really want that guy operating on you?

Government is not like art. In art, the artist can paint what he wants, the way he wants. He can imbue it with hidden messages, explicit messages or no messages at all. The beauty of art is that anyone can interpret it any way they want and in doing so they don’t impact anyone else’s ability to enjoy it. With government on the other hand, the realities of life are quite different. Regardless of the author of a bill’s limited intentions, its passage almost always presages a reinterpretation and expansion once it becomes law. Do you imagine when the 16th Amendment was passed Americans expected tax rates to quickly rise to 90%? Do you think when the Civil Rights Acts were passed in the 1960s the writers expected white and Hispanic firefighters to lose promotions because no black firefighters did well on the promotion tests? Do you think when Nixon created the EPA he planned on the agency eventually seeking to regulate milk spills, rainwater and lightbulbs? No, no and no!

None of that matters to liberals however, and that’s the problem with government: Government regulations are rarely limited to benign interpretation or precise application. They have real world consequences, most of which are unintended, and most of those are negative. And the rest of us are stuck with them because they rarely get repealed and almost always grow more restrictive.

Taking a page from the Impressionists, at some point the citizens who drive prosperity in the United States will stop operating in the world of realism – i.e. high taxes and oppressive regulations – and opt to do something altogether different. Maybe they will work a bit less or be satisfied with 40 employees rather than adding a few more. That might sound benign right now, but just as Impressionism began an evolution that led to everything from Robert Mapplethorpe to Willem de Kooning to Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ, government regulations have a way of morphing the world in ways that were unimaginable (to liberals) when they were passed. When America is left with only the dependants and bureaucrats, the wealth and job creators either dead or long gone to places like Switzerland or Australia, the legacy of liberal failure will be complete.

As President Obama begins the second leg of his quest to “fundamentally transform America” we should keep that in mind. Thankfully the Constitution limits his time in office to 8 years, unfortunately the shackles of liberal government he leaves us with will likely last far longer and morph into things even he didn’t imagine. The reality of that hell is one that even Monet would have a hard time blurring.

About Vince

The product of a military family, growing up in Naples, Italy and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and being stationed in Germany for two years while in the Army, Vince spent half of his first quarter century seeing the US from outside of its own borders. That perspective, along with a French wife and two decades as a struggling entrepreneur have only fueled an appreciation for freedom and the fundamental greatness of the gifts our forefathers left us.

Advertisement

24 Responses to “Life imitates art… Liberals see the world as they imagine it is, not how it actually is”

john

But Vince crime RATES have been going down already. New York City’s murder rate has dropped down at leaqst in part to taking guns off the street. And as for prohibition isn’t that when we put restrictions on weapons such as sawed off shotguns and fully automatic weapons to keep them put of the hands of gangsters? What is your personal view on the restriction on explosive rounds such as RPGs? Certainly one can see the advantage they would provide if “tyrants” tried to usurp our freedoms. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/20/US-Homicide-Rates-are-at-a-50-Year-Low

James Raider

Well done Vince. It seems when taxpayers wake up from this nightmare the Nation will look like your Picasso above – a disjointed, confusing, mess of crap.

The Picasso phenomenon is a very apt metaphor for what is occurring. Picasso’s early work showed beauty, sensitivity and fluid style, . . . . and then he was “marketed” by a brilliant marketeer. In minutes, he could paint strange crap that no one understood but could “inject” their own feelings into – Obama was a perfect canvas for the libs behind him to present to the libs in front of him and his teleprompter. He could preach from the teleprompter, tell the masses what would energize them to imbue him with their dreams and wishes, and presto, . . . a President.

I had one Professor on sabbatical from the Paris Sorbonne University who knew Picasso personally and who shared great colourful first-hand stories which didn’t do much to raise my opinion of the “art industry.” At the time it also explained my confusion on the clamour which surrounded Picasso who had been purposely, meticulously turned into a “Celebrity.” A talented artist, also a narcissist, had been converted into a hack.

Hard Right

Nan G

Liberals’ agenda prohibits their looking at the logical consequences of their actions.
Just today we learn that Obama has shuffled yet another top military man out the door….
Does that make it FOUR just since Benghazi?
Yup.
This time is was General James Mattis who had been commander of Central Command.
His ”crime?”
Asking, “And then what?”
Honest.
Obama will not allow anyone to rain on his parade with ”and then whats.”
SEE:http://freebeacon.com/report-obama-ousting-centcom-chief-mattis/

GaffaUK

When America is left with only the dependants and bureaucrats, the wealth and job creators either dead or long gone to places like Switzerland or Australia, the legacy of liberal failure will be complete.

Australia…

Universal Health Care
Compulsory Voting
No guns
No death penalty
Pro-choice
Openly gay politicians and judges
Evolution taught in school
And a female Prime Minister who is an unmarried atheist

Lots of us who supported it before now are re-arranging our affairs to live simply and make enough but not so much as to be bumped into higher taxes.
Many are fleeing high tax states for low-to-no tax states.

ilovebeeswarzone

I hate PICASSO, THE ONLY THING I FIND FROM HIM NOW THAT IS,
THE CONSTANT CHEWING OF OBAMA HE MUST HAVE HAD THE SAME,
AND PAINTED WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS RIGHT, AND CONVINCE OTHER
IT WAS ART, THEY PAID MULTI MILLIONS TO OWN THAT PICASSO MADE BY A SICK MIND CHEWING HERBS
WHO LIKE TO CHEW SOME HERBS OR STRAW MADE OF HERBS WHILE PAINTING HIS CALLED MASTERPIECES,
OBAMA IS CREATING HIS MASTER PIECES WHILE CHEWING AND THINK HE HAS CREATED A PERFECT LIVING CONDITIONS FOR HIS PEOPLE, HE THINK IT’S GOOD, HE GOES IN CAMPAIGNS AND SELL IT TO HIS ADORING CROWD AS HIS CREATION, BUT IT HAS TWISTED FLAWED IT’S CROOKED,
HE SEE HIMSELF AS GOD WHO CREATE THE WORLD
AND THOUGHT ON THE 7TH DAY IT IS GOOD, BUT GOD WAS NOT CHEWING ANYTHING, HE MADE A PERFECT MASTERPIECE
HE CREATED THE HERBS AND STRAW FOR THOSE WHO CONSTANTLY LIKE TO CHEW LIKE PRIMAL HUMAN
WHO NEVER REALLY EVOLVED AND CAN ONLY CREATE A CROOKED MASTERPIECE,

Ditto

Maybe they forgot about Prohibition? It doesn’t take much looking to see the negative consequences of that. Not only did it not work, but it created a paradise for gangsters to grow rich and powerful.

This is why I think the “war on drugs” needs to be ended, and why I have no problem with treating “street” drugs in like manner as with alcohol. (With the caveat that it still be illegal to sell or provide drugs to children except those prescribed by a doctor). On this I think that the Libertarians are correct. Take the profit out and it will have massive effect on gangs and organized crime. It will also greatly reduce the ridiculous costs of enforcing drug laws. Addicted users will continue to abuse drugs no matter what laws are passed.

liberal1(objectivity)

@Nan G: If the ‘logical’ consequences of a decision were both logical and negative, then the appropriate action would be taken. Conservatives use the word ‘logical’ to lend credulity to the arguments, which are not necessarily logical.

ilovebeeswarzone

Liberal 1
you said; the liberals see the world in terms of progress and freedom.
well it would be alright if they would not leave the garbages on the ground they walk on
for all to clean,
is it what you call progress and freedom?
the CONSERVATIVES CLEAN UP AMERICA FIRST AND LET THE WORLD DO THEIR OWN CLEANING, AND THE SAME CONSERVATIVES FIND INNOVATIVES WAY
FOR THE BETTERNESS OF AMERICA FIRST, SO TO HAVE THE SMART CREATIVES AMERICAN LIBERATED FROM RESTRICTIONS FROM THE GOVERNMENT MANY ARMS TRYING TO PREVENT THE SMART AMERICANS TO CREATE, AS THEY DID SINCE THE BEGINNING OF AMERICA,
NOW YOU DON’T SEE IT, IT HAS BEEN REPLACE BY AN EXODUS OF THOSE CREATORS,

ilovebeeswarzone

Nan G

I think the art of David and William Adolphe Bouguereau found words in the great poets of the Romantic period.
Poetry also has undergone a degeneration, almost to the point past nonsense.
When you said you appreciated Seurat’s pointillism I immediately called to mind one of his acolytes, Umberto Boccioni, when he painted Riot at the Gallery.
It’s great for two reasons: one, pointillism to perfection, and two, that was exactly what happened when they showed these early rebel artists in galleries.

As to

@liberal1(objectivity): If the ‘logical’ consequences of a decision were both logical and negative, then the appropriate action would be taken. Conservatives use the word ‘logical’ to lend credulity to the arguments, which are not necessarily logical.

Here’s the problem with your ”reasoning,”
It was Obama and his LEFTY fellows who could not stand facing the consequences of THEIR own actions, Lib.
All the General did was let them say they were OK with a policy (like allowing Iran to get “the bomb”) then he would ask them, “And then what will happen?”

It was thinking past their own shallow policy ”success” that they refused to do.
They only want to (as Obama said in his last speech) win the peace.
Wining the war is not on their agenda.
Main problem with that is that HISTORY shows you cannot ”win the peace,” until AFTER you have won the war!
They don’t want to have such negative thoughts running around inside their own heads so they go, “LALALALALA I can’t HEAR you!”
Or, in this case, they pushed the General out.

Enchanted

Nan G

@Enchanted: liberals see the world as it should be for others, but not for themselves.

Perfect!
Our Universities are bastions for Liberalism.
Yet…..

In a Dec. 6 letter, the North Canton school, Stark State College, told English composition instructor Robert Balla that “in order to avoid penalties under the Affordable Care Act… employees with part-time or adjunct status will not be assigned more than an average of 29 hours per week.”
Therefore this semester, this father of two’s course load at Stark State is down to one instead of two as a result of the school’s new limit on hours, cutting his salary by about a total of $2,000.

ilovebeeswarzone

Nan G
TO BAD THERE IS NO GENERAL LIKE MATTIS IN THE WHITE HOUSE,
THERE would not be so much failures to restart or to bandaid,
the GENERAL WAS TRAINED AND HAS PICKED UP HIS EXPERIENCE OF GENERAL
IN CHARGE OF MEN WHO WILL GO WHERE NO ONE HAVE GONE BEFORE ON ONE OF HIS ORDER,
HE DOESN’T MESS UP THE FIRST TIME, BECAUSE HE WILL LOSE HIS SONS HE CANNOT BARE TO MAKE A MISTAKE,
SO IN GOVERNING SUCH AN AMERICA NEED THE SAME KNOW HOW OF THE ” WHAT IF”
HE WON’T BE SMILING AS MUCH, BECAUSE HE IS THINKING OF THE “WHAT’S NEXT”
AND “WHY ‘S THAT NEXT”
AND HE WILL NOT WASTE HIS TIME AND THE MONEY OF HIS PEOPLE IN UNSURE ENDEAVOUR WHICH COST BILLIONS AND FAIL LIKE OBAMA IS DOING TO THE PEOPLE AT THE COST OF TRILLIONS HE CANNOT OR DON’T WANT TO FACE,
THIS AMERICA HAS GIVEN THE CITIZENS A SHOW OF WHAT THE GENERAL MATTIS WOULD GIVE
DISCIPLINE AND PERFECT HARMONY WITH IT, THEY ARE TRAIN TO MARCH, AND FIGHT ENEMIES
WHO WANT TO HURT THIS NATION , THOSE WHO WANT TO TAKE YOUR WAY OF DEFENDING YOURSELF AND THOSE YOU LOVE, AND YOUR NEIGHBOR ALSO IF ASK, THEY ARE TRAINED TO CORRECT THE WRONG AND TAKE THE TRAITORS AWAY FOR GOOD, THEY ARE DEPENDEBLE AND TRUSTED BY THE CIVILIANS WANTING TO FEEL SECURE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
THAT ONE WHICH SOME LEADERS WANT TO BREAK IN PIECES AND
MANIPULATE TO FIT THEIR SOCIALIST COMMUNIST INTENT WHICH IS UNAMERICAN.
GENERAL MATTIS YOU WOULD DO VERY WELL AS PRESIDENT OF THIS BEAUTIFUL AMERICA YOU HAVE SWEAR TO PROTECT AND DID IT ALL THE WAY, THAT MAKE YOU WORTHY OF LEADING
YOUR BELOVED AMERICA. MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE,

Poppa_T

When it comes to art I have always preferred our home grown painters…Frederic Remington, George Catlin, Thomas Hill and maybe a couple of naturalized citizens like Jean-Jacques Audubon but I do lean toward realistic painters and naturalists.

Now I don’t know if life imitate art or if art imitates life but I do know that politics and art are similar, most artists and politicians are control freaks—and that is trouble. A painter knows exactly where a dollop of fuchsia must go. A composer knows exactly when to toot the horn. And writers of course know how to cut and slash their paragraphs of prose. The trouble is that politicians are the same way but they use people as their medium. They know exactly where people should go, and what they should look like, and how to cut and slash Mr and Mrs John Q. Public to put them in order.

Between liberals politicians with their dreams of a utopian future and conservative politicians with their ideals of a past golden age we have been led to the brink of economic collapse…we may be past the brink. As Vince said in his very well thought out post the prohibition of alcohol did not work. As Ditto implied, the prohibition of street drugs has not worked. A prohibition on firearms will work no better than the other two prohibitions have. I can’t find anything in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government the authority to regulate anything that may or may not be bad for me, be it getting drunk, smoking my brains out, firing off a 1000 rounds through my Bushmaster, or singing Jesus Loves the Little Children in front of an abortion clinic…. as long as I engage in my preferred activity in a manner that does not cause harm to come to others it’s none of your damn business what I do.

President Obama wants to prohibit firearms and is willing to use the force of law to enforce his will over me? Just because he thinks he knows what is best for me? Well I am tired of people who think they know my needs better than I do.

Aqua

Liberals see the world in terms of the progress of freedom for all Americans—please note the liberal extension of freedom for LGBGT persons, while conservatives fights to keep them in bondage.

The single largest load of bull-crap written on the Interwebz to date. Who exactly has blocked freedom for the LGBT community? How are conservatives stopping them? The single difference between liberals and conservatives is liberals believe the only way to be universally recognized is if the federal government does so. The federal government is the very reason their freedoms are restricted now. Why is the federal government even involved in marriage? Why does the federal government even have a say so on who marries who? It damn sure isn’t in the Constitution.
The reason the federal government is involved in marriage is because they don’t want to leave it to the States. And the States is exactly where it should be. The only thing the federal government should do is drop the federal laws for beneficiaries on federal programs. That should be done through contract law. Other than that, no matter what the federal government does, they can never make the States recognize anything the States don’t want to recognize.

ilovebeeswarzone

Poppa_T
YES YOU KNOW YOUR NEED BETTER FOR SURE,
they want to do as ONE PARENT do a child, tell him how to everything,
and when the child grow up he get out of it, and say enough of commands,
and tell from now on I decide for myself,
specially if the parents abused their authority, and did not live to what they expected from the child,
he has grown up to see and that’s what happen with the abusive government with thousands of pages
of do and don’t, as someone said, you cannot not get guilty of one at least and have to pay money to a lawyer to get justice while your pocket get empty,
that is the trick to enrich his friend lawyers at the WHITE HOUSE THEY ARE DRULLING WAITING TO GET A CLIENT WHO DID NOT COMPLY WITH ONE OF THOSE LAW, IT’S A MAFIA STYLE FROM CORRUPT
POLITICIAN, AND THEY THINK WE DON’T SEE THAT MANEUVER TO HURT THE PEOPLE,
SOME DAY THEY WILL PAY FOR IT, BUT MANY ARE TAKEN IN THEIR NOOSE WHILE THEY ARE IN LEADERSHIP TO SCREW THE GOOD AMERICANS IN THE MEAN TIME.